Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 156 (8106 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-02-2014 4:35 AM
155 online now:
Faith, Malcolm, PaulK, petrophysics1, Tangle (5 members, 150 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Epee
Post Volume:
Total: 733,794 Year: 19,635/28,606 Month: 132/2,774 Week: 548/563 Day: 17/115 Hour: 4/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ACI versus EPA: What happens when you put non-scientists in charge of science issues
Taz
Member
Posts: 5040
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 1 of 2 (636883)
10-11-2011 8:00 PM


ACI = American Concrete Institute
EPA = Environmental Protection Agency

Pretty much all of the conservative base are against the EPA for bogus reasons. I don't want to talk about those bogus reasons. So, if you're a conservative christian who thinks you know everything, it's best that you go somewhere else for your rant against the EPA.

What I want to talk about here is what happens when you put non-scientists in charge of a scientific issue. Sort of like the whole issue with evolution vs creationism.

As an engineer, I've been hearing about this for a long time now regarding the use of fly ash in concrete. You can read about the issue at the following link and subsequent links there.

http://www.concrete.org/flyash/flyash.htm

Basically speaking, fly ash is a waste product from coal power plants. Millions of tons are being produced. It is hazardous and can cause cancer in people.

The conventional way to deal with fly ash is to dump it in land fills. And that's what the EPA wants to do.

On the other hand, almost every environmental scientist and engineer is telling the EPA that it is a much better solution to use fly ash in concrete mixes. What happens is when you put fly ash in concrete, it gets frozen and will never bother anyone again.

This is oppose to putting them in land fills where they can leak into the water table.

The EPA's thought process is simple. It's a hazardous material. Therefore, it's gotta stay away from people. They are unwilling to listen to scientists who are telling them otherwise.

This is a frustrating issue, really. One of the people I work with is a leader in environmental engineering. And he's been pulling his hair out over this issue. To him, it's frustrating to deal with EPA people who think in 1-dimensional terms.

Should there be a societal push to put real honest to god scientists in charge of real honest to god science? Or should we continue to let politicians who think in terms of political correctness and 1-dimensional thought process?

And for the record, I'm all for having an EPA. What I'm oppose to is having politicians in charge of it rather than people who actually work in the field.


Admin
Director
Posts: 11414
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 2 of 2 (636913)
10-12-2011 7:16 AM


Thread Copied to Is It Science? Forum
Thread copied to the ACI versus EPA: What happens when you put non-scientists in charge of science issues thread in the Is It Science? forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014